Tuesday, August 20, 2013

TSA Travel Tips Tuesday - Aerosols

These
are aerosol items that were surrendered to TSA at the checkpoint.

Tuesday’s TSA
Travel Tip has to do with toiletries in aerosol containers.

Traveling to
weddings, birthdays, job interviews, vacations and other special occasions
often necessitates that travelers bring along an assortment of aerosol toiletry
products that they use on a regular basis in their homes. Typically those
products include salon-quality hairsprays, antiperspirants, shaving cream and
body mists – typically in large aerosol
containers.

TSA has
determined that liquids, aerosols and gels, in limited quantities, are safe to
bring aboard aircraft. So it is important to remember that all liquid, aerosol
and gel items must be stored in containers 3.4 ounce or smaller. All of the 3.4
ounce containers must fit in a sealed 1-quart, clear plastic, zip-top bag, and
only one plastic zip-top bag is permitted per passenger inside carry-on
baggage.

If you want to
travel with your full-size aerosol containers of antiperspirant, hairspray,
suntan lotion, shaving cream, and hair mousse, you can do so by packing them in
your checked baggage. That way, you’ll be sure to have your favorite toiletries
with you when you arrive at your destination.

To ensure that
you’ll make it to your destination with your large aerosol can, today’s tip is
to pack them in your checked baggage. You can read more about our liquid
policies here:

The airlines charge too much to check a bag, so people carry everything but the kitchen sink in their carry-on bags. People have forgotten about the liquid scare in England and don't remember or don't know about 3-1-1. TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. Either that or let the liquids go. It's been too long.

I have the same question as RB, somethings don't add up, and the risk isn't removed at all by throwing a potentially dangerous liquid in the trash right next to where everybody walks by the checkpoint.

" TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. " There are signs all over the airport. People need to read." Why does TSA toss these potential explosives in common trash right at the checpoint?" Bottle "A" has one part of the explosive chemistry. Bottle "B" has another. It's not an explosive until "A" and "B" are combined to make "C." (Chemical reaction.)

Melissa Newman said...I have the same question as RB, somethings don't add up, and the risk isn't removed at all by throwing a potentially dangerous liquid in the trash right next to where everybody walks by the checkpoint.

August 21, 2013 at 5:39 AM......................

Lots of things at TSA don't add up.

ID checking, is not a Limited Administrative Search for WEI making it an illegal search.

Playing 20 questions or having to state your name is not a Limited Administrative Search for WEI making it an illegal search.

Gate Gropes prove that TSA Searches are ineffective, or that the Sterile Area is not really secure, yet TSA abuses passengers instead of taking steps to secure the area.

TSA's use of Enhanced Pat Downs is clearly an illegal search since it violates a persons privacy when TSA screeners feel in the crotch and buttocks area of the person being assaulted.

TSA's war on liquids doesn't add up when TSA confiscates items and then tosses them into common trash bins at the checkpoint proving those items are not dangerous in any manner.

TSA has pushed so far over the boundary of the Limited Administrative Search TSA is allowed to conduct that it should make people take a stand against the growing police state that TSA is a part of.

TSA is not a friend of citizens who believe in freedom and our Constitution.

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones. They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

If the liquid ban was removed or at least relaxed, the TSA would actually get good PR for a change. There is no reason why it can't be relaxed. The TSA has the ability to test liquids. Every item does not have to be tested. If there is suspicion that a liquid is dangerous, then it can be tested and random testing can also be performed.

I don't feel any safer when I see liquids thrown into the trash can next to the checkpoint. I've even seen a TSA screener dump a gray bin full of partially filled bottles into a trash can right next to me as I waited to go through the checkpoint. If these liquids are potentially dangerous, why are they disposed of in such a careless way?

Anonymous said...If the liquid ban was removed or at least relaxed, the TSA would actually get good PR for a change. There is no reason why it can't be relaxed. The TSA has the ability to test liquids. Every item does not have to be tested. If there is suspicion that a liquid is dangerous, then it can be tested and random testing can also be performed.

I don't feel any safer when I see liquids thrown into the trash can next to the checkpoint. I've even seen a TSA screener dump a gray bin full of partially filled bottles into a trash can right next to me as I waited to go through the checkpoint. If these liquids are potentially dangerous, why are they disposed of in such a careless way?

Anonymous said...The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones. They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

August 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM-------------------------------

What is stopping them from combining smaller quantities of liquids into a larger container after being screened?

Of course this doesn't address the fascination with liquids. Explosives also come in solid form too.

No, I remember. I remember that the plot was purely aspirational, that it was foiled by police and intelligence work, that the plotters did not even have airplane tickets, let alone "liquid explosives."

What everybody seems to be missing here is that this is a government policy, so it doesn't have to make sense, be consistent or be justifiable! As "Anonymous" said, if you don't like the rules, don't fly. I no longer fly. However, when the airlines start going broke again, flying may become mandatory as part of still another government bail-out.

Anonymous said..."The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones. They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones."

Except, as liquids, these can easily be recombined into a larger container, as empty container sizes are not limited. Either the liquids are a threat, or they are not. Even the TSA admits its best scientists took several tries before they could create a viable liquid explosive. Doesn't sound like a viable threat to me, if even their chemists are having a hard time doing it.

RB said...What happened to the comment that was posted suggesting that it is perfectly safe to dispose of two part explosives, part a and part b, in the same common trash bin?

Is it TSA's belief that doing so is safe?

August 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM ..................

Anonymous said..." TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. " There are signs all over the airport. People need to read." Why does TSA toss these potential explosives in common trash right at the checpoint?" Bottle "A" has one part of the explosive chemistry. Bottle "B" has another. It's not an explosive until "A" and "B" are combined to make "C." (Chemical reaction.)

August 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM...............

In my quick reading of the blog I read over the thread I was questioning. It's there and that is my mistake.

What is not my mistake is how anyone can accept that putting both Part A and Part B of a potential or real explosive in the same container makes sense or is the act of anyone concerned abut safety.

I own up to my mistake but am still waiting for TSA to explain how tossing LGA's in common trash bins has any basis in safety.

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones. They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

I say:

Yeah, but you still can take an empty bottle to put all the content of your tiny liquid bottles into. Therefore, even your (questionable) argument does not hold water (pun intended)....

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones. They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

------

pssst. Maybe you don't know this, but small containers can be combined into a large container. It's by this secret process called "pouring it all into a larger container".

Why did you post my comment, Bob, on this subject? You think I'm giving aid to the enemy? Does the TSA believe that a terrorist or anyone else wanting to create havoc at a checkpoint wouldn't think of what I wrote?

Anonymous said... The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones. They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

And exactly what stops them from pouring all the little bottles into a big one after they get through the checkpoint? The TSA specifically allows large empty bottle to go through, and you could probably just buy a large one after the checkpoint and empty it.

Lisa wrote the blog posting about spray cans and IMO does not deserve continued employment. Follow this; some yahoo (dumb person) writes a newspaper filler stating you should pour hot water into your kitchen sink to removed grease in the pipes. But talk to a plumber and U learn that the water cools and the fat redeposits further down the line, especially on cast iron. Hence, BAD ADVICE.

The FAA does not permit transportation of what Lisa says is OK.

Loved the comments of Security Threater and ... government policy, so it doesn't have to make sense

CliffOnTheRoad sez - "The FAA does not permit transportation of what Lisa says is OK."

Lisa covered the acceptable toiletry aerosols and indicated the sizes allowed in carry on baggage, as well as the ones not allowed in carry on baggage. The link included in the thread will give you a more complete break down of the carry on LAG regulations. To clarify, toiletry aerosols 3.4 oz or less are acceptable in carry on baggage (to include but not limited to - hair sprays, perfumes/body sprays/colognes, and suntan lotions).

If a TSA checkpoint trashcan containing flamable liquids catches fire, all you have to do is cover the container and the fire is extinguished in seconds, because of the lack of oxygen.If a lunatic terrorist dumps that liquid on a passenger, a crew member, or on some flammable aircraft interior parts, the fire could cause the airplane crash, killing hundreds of people. It only takes a minute or two for a cabin fire to get hot enough, or consume so much oxygen, that everyone on the plane dies. If the heat and smoke doesn't kill everyone, the crash will.

I look at it like this. If you can't get a bottle of water on a plane you can't get a bomb on a plane. If you can't get a small knife on a plane you can't get a big knife on a plane. If you have nothing to hide then why does it bother you if they look and do you want to be sitting on a plane with a bunch of people who can bring anything they want on with them? How bout that guy with the hammer? or the guy with the set of throwing stars, or the guy with the bottles of clorox and amonia? We are lucky they don't start fining us for paying so little attention to the rules. The loss of a can of hairspray is nothing next to the $50.00 or $100.00 fine they could have been handing out for ignoring the rules! If they ever change the rules I'm not sure I would ever get on a plane again. I have never met a TSA officer who wasn't trying to get me through his security line as fast as he could. I thank each and every one of them for having the nerve to come to work each day knowing that today might be the day he could find the bomb he has been looking for.

US is the only country I have traveled with such schizophrenic and psychotic rules, not European nor Asian country do...plane simple there is LESS & LESS LIBERTY for ALL, just a waste of money AMERICAN people don't have in this going-down-the-toilet economy.

Hello!!! Does no one remember 9/11? The rules are for our safety and I, for one, have no problem following the rules if it means I won't get blown up! If you don't like it, go live in one of those European or Asian countries you referenced. There's a reason we have such an immigration problem you know. That's because everyone knows living in America can be so much better than some of the countries you reference to.

While throwing liquids that may be explosive into the trash at the gates may do some damage nearby, I believe the casualties would be far less than on a plane. Maybe 100 casualties, at most, around the gates. Everyone aboard, possibly 200 - 400 passengers on a long flight in a jumbo jet, could be killed by an in-flight explosion.

To the comments saying that the TSA violates our rights, here's the deal: We as Americans don't have a "right" to fly unless you own your own airplane and pilot's license. We exchange goods (money) for services (flying) by entering into a social contract. We agree by paying for a flight and expecting to board it to all the airline policies. You don't have to fly. Sure it's a bit of a monopoly... but it's not inherently bad.

Lace A. Narrator confuses the agreement for services between the air carrier and the traveler with the violation of rights a& privacy forced on the airlines and travelers by the TSA.

The American Citizen does not have a "right to fly" with a private airplane, in fact it is a very tightly regulated activity.

Actually, the fedgov controls the air, (FAA, TSA) the riverways, (Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers) the railways (Amtrack regs on railroad travel) and the highways.So, if you accept Lace A. Narrator's flawed premise on flying, you also have to apply his premise to every type of travel, and the citizen can go nowhere.No Lance, we need to take our rights back from the over-reaching fedgov.

The FBI tested the TSA and we're able to get 90 % of the contraband they brought through the checkpoints. While they are busy performing G security theatre for you guys, confiscating shampoos, FBI agents brought weapons et al, unchecked. So sorry but what is keeping you safe is not TSA, I instead it is the intelligence and police agencies. If a terrorist makes it to an American an airport, it will likely be too late.